Palatino

Hi Jdoorjam!

The solution to me is to put:

<div style="font-family: Palatino">

as the first line of the template and

</div>

right at the end.

Palatino is not the most common typeface for people to have on their computers, so "font-family: Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Palatino Roman, Palatino LT Roman, serif" would pick up the most common ones people would have on their computers, and allow for "serif" at the end to force them to Times or the like if they have nothing like it.

PS: I'm red/blue colour blind and your "click here to leave a message" box at the top of the page is unreadable because of it! Any chance of substituting #F8BF24 for #E94903 to boost the contrast? :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Ledmonkey

Thank you for your concern, but I was actually editing my own page not logged in, to test a script.. Ledmonkey 00:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: DOS Master

Whew... Yeah that was momentarily frustrating, but I think its all good now. Thanks for the heads up. I know that your job is important here. --PZ 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam deleted "Fields of Rock"

So... why was it deleted while I was in the middle of actually writing it? (non-encyclopedic non-notable non-article.) does not really mean much... and besides... if Ozzfest is there, why can't Fields of Rock be there?

Some CSD's tonight

Hey, don't know if you even noticed, but on a few occasions tonight it appeard as if I recreated some CSD's after they had been deleted. I just wanted to let you know why that was happening. I've got a script that automaticly edits in the appropriate CSD tag. I had added in safeguards to see if there was a tag already posted (Between me viewing and my script editing) and to see if it had been deleted, but it turns out a blank article has a value.length of 1, not 0. I've updated my script to reflect this, and it shouldn't recreated deleted CSD's anymore. Just thought i'd let you know, seeing as how you've deleted quite a few of my misshaps tonight. Cheers! --lightdarkness(talk) 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

rvrt

Always a pleasure!

nn corp

I attempted to add an article about the history of my company but was told that it was deleted by you with error ID "nn corp"

Please Advise

kind words

Thanks for the kind words, re Metacarpus. If I can ever be of service, let me know. --Arcadian 01:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking out

I'm not really involved with this user, but I remember he used to copy-paste long, unsigned (usually bold-faced or capitalized) comments into various discussion pages. It took me more than a week (with repeated messages on his talk page) to get him to start signing his posts at least. He has been quiet for a while, but it looks like he's back with the usual stuff. I never really formally warned him against personally attacking people (although I left some messages here). I just wanted him to get a formal warning and that has been done. [1] I'll let you know if he doesn't improve his behavior. AucamanTalk 03:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ERASE OTHER PEOPLES WRITING IN DISCUSSIONS

You erased what I left for Acuman is is not suppose to tampored with 69.196.139.250 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neologism

Hi there Jdoorjam. I noticed that you speedy deleted a neologism about 10 minutes ago that I was about to list for AfD. To the best of my knowledge, neologisms are not speedyable. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags

Um, you might want to talk to Chadbryant about that. He's doing the exact same thing, only with a greater fervor and in a more blatant and vandalistic (is that a word?) fashion. The only sockpuppet tags I have placed are on Master Of RSPW and I believe one other, while Mr. Bryant has for months now been placing sockpuppet tags all over the place without any recourse taken by the Wikipedia administrators. --FARVA 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I SUGGEST YOU READ THE POLICIES

It was not a personal attack and I suggest you read the policies yourself. You can not erase what is written on a talk page. 69.196.139.250 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IP socks of Roitr

Sorry to interrupt, but what method are you using to tag all of those suspected IP socks? JDoorjamTalk 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add some explanations to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr at the next stage, though definately not today (I've already spent all night tracking this dude down...) --DmitryKo 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It should have been done way earlier, I've been actually following this guy since last December because he nearly destroyed my favourite articles, but I just didn't think he's been using so many socks... --DmitryKo 04:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL... thanks for being so caring...but

You reverted an edit made to my user page. But that was my IP, I had forgotten to log in. So thank you for reminding me to make sure I'm logged in before editing my profile. Thanks! =)

You may want to take a look at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Dick Witham - User:FARVA is the latest in a long line of sockpuppets (over 150) employed by the same disruptive user in a year-long campaign of harassment, personal attacks, and vandalism. Numerous admins have blocked his accounts (usually on sight), and he can be easily identified in a new incarnation by his vandalizing of my user/talk pages and removal of sock tags from his previous accounts' user pages. - Chadbryant 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual, Chad has no proof of his claims and is once again going against Wikipedia administrator request by placing sockpuppet tags on User accounts. First you make the request on his talk page for him to slow down/stop, but even before that he was asked to leave the tag off of a certain account that he continues to place the tag on. I am not that person who he claims I am, and his paranoia is a common trait in his Wikipedia dealings. For some reason he seems to have a persecution complex of which this "DickWitham" person is the manifested result. At any rate, I have once again removed his vandalism from my talk page, removed the sockpuppet tags from others, and request that you please block him as a result of his obviously trolling and vandalism. --FARVA 14:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Me again. I just wanted to let you know that Chadbryant is still placing sockpuppet tags on account -- mine included. This is exactly what I meant by leaving and not coming back because some jerk like him did something like that. Could you please remind him to cut it out? He's been told that before, so he more than likely won't listen to you...maybe a 24 hour block is in order? --FARVA 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have appended the currently existing RFCU on User:FARVA. Thanks for your understanding and research. - Chadbryant 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new admin!

Congrats on your adminship JDoorJam. I'm currently sending you (and in fact all recently made admins) a quick request which to use your new admin powers to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source information after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

About Acuman

I have problems with reacist comments and one-sided edits bu user:Acuman. I am not even Persian, but what he says about Persians along with other groups such as Kurds and Lors offends me and is uncalled for and untrue. Here is an example of what user:Acuman has written to other editors in discussion: "Long live Iran! Now go after your business. "Dead-worshipper." "You illiterate mental." And your Cyrus the Great was nothing more than an illiterate murderer. At least he had a good excuse. But you...??? And the mercenary is your dad.

I ask you is this right? This is not only a personal attack attack it is an aatack on a whole ethnic group. 69.196.139.250 16:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that quote the anon user is talking about, comes from the evidence here. --ManiF 08:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

Thank you for your attention. The user has been blocked for incivility. As for your other comments, the RfC case is a little more complicated than it might look. You might want to read it a little more carefully. I'll take the time to write something to defend myself later, but first I need to make sure people stop spamming my user talk page with personal attacks and irrelevant comments.

I have to say I've never persoanlly attacked anyone except this one case where I have outlined here. You might want to read my explanation carefully. The case is somewhat old and has been closed but some other users keep bringing it up to justify their personal attacks (which number far more) against me. AucamanTalk 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to also point out that Acuman has edited pages without any discussion and continued to do so even when asked to stop. Manik666 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Sorry I am not too sure if I understood the last part of your comment here:

"In any case, long story short, I don't think InShaneee is "out to get" anybody, and the notion that InShaneee was gearing up to ban anybody (barring, of course, the type of gross policy violation that would get anybody banned) is just silly."

He did mention that he is going to get me blocked..you do realise this, correct?

Recent Aucaman-related craziness

Whew. I can't thank you enough. I've recently gotten dragged into the the war between the Iranian users (the Aucaman crucifixian being simply the latest disaster), and I was actually going to start looking for who else was keeping tabs on this. I don't know if you were aware, but this sort of thing was actually going on with several users on various talk and user talk pages before Aucaman even rolled into town. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if anything is going to resolve this aside from dragging both sides before the ArbCom. But yes, now that I've been involved, I do feel obligated to stick around until this gets resolved, so count me in to any related discussions, and thanks again your for your involvement in this mess. Here's to a peaceful, speedy resolution! --InShaneee 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee as much as I respect you, because of the many times you have warned Iranian users while not warning the non-Iranian users when you were invited to look at the case, I would like to beg you not to stick around to fix this situation, and let more neutral admins to do so, I could not thank you more if you would agree to this. --Kash 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the suggestion. Will get started as soon as I get some time. ~~User:Stanley011

What I should understand about admins

Firstly, thanks for your reasonable comment. However I have to get my voice heard here.

I understand your view is to enforce policy, now as I understand it admins in my view have to support the new commers and when they see an older user is causing all these problems, they should be helpful toward the 'victims', who are protesting against these actions. If they are not doing anything right, admins should help them to do whatever has to be done, not just warn and then threaten them to be blocked! How wonderful and friendly is that? Surely you all understand the problem here - and if you don't I can put it in simple English in an email. (Hint: Them calling us ULTRA-NATIONALIST, us simply pointing at what they are doing), its simply politically motivated. If you would like to know more on the origin of this matter, it would also be helpful to read this (very good read).

Now I know..I know you are too busy, all admins seem to be TOO busy to be fair. I know. I have written an article on it (you can read it here. But your job is way too important to just be too busy and do everything like how this case is being dealt with.

You speak of us reminding the users about policies, we have done a full mediation, request for comment and now we are getting the.. ArmOrb? or whatever. It's just funny how things are dealt with here. It's almost impossible to get such a simple issue across to people who can deal with it.

Something else you mentioned, no one ever asked Aucaman to apologize. I for one, only asked him to comment why he said it, and I also invited admins to what he said and what they think of it. Some admins responded rather nastily. InShanee told me he is going to ban me and another one here basically told us to go away (a few messages above he had similar attitude to other Iranians). So we are complaining about the issues, we know about the policies but no one seems to be bothered.

I suggest you ask InShaneee to get himself familiar with the policies because he is the one who was obviously wrong in this case, no? I don't want to waste both mine and your time, but there is enough evidence for me to open a request for responce with all the 'bad' assumptions he has made about Iranian wikipedians, while not caring at all what the other side has done. I have to express that the other side did not use to report things to him, it was US who was reporting the things to him, he simple came back and gave us warnings instead of dealing with what they had done. Similar thing happened tonight, I told him about Aucaman and this time there was the harsh 'block' word being mentioned. This has happened several times with this admin.

So if there is anything else we have to do, beside learning about policies, perhaps a miracle?, let me know. I will try to find a prophet.

ps. If there is anything I have mentioned here which offends anyone, I am sorry. I really am, however this is just becoming ridiculous --Kash 02:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(Moved discussion to talk pages)

Sorry I am not sure if this was a great idea. I would have liked to get my message across here, that an admin wrongly threatened me to be blocked! --Kash 02:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and civility. I also admit I have not followed the wiki policy 100%. Now, I don't want you to comment on any facts beside Wikipedia policy: tell me, was InShanee right to threaten me that he is going to block me because of my personal attack? Bearing in mind this is the steps of events:

1- I reported to him that Aucaman has made the specific remark

2- He came and warned me that I have personally attacked Aucaman, then he threatened that he will block me because of this

(Basically because I asked Aucaman to comment on why this he called Cyrus an illetrate murderer - reason why I did this was because Aucaman was defending him self on RfC claiming he is Iranian, and then editing Iranian articles daily, putting up disputes as he likes, etc)

3- He went and deleted my messages on Aucaman's talk page.

4- He never made any action against Aucaman.

Is it me or is this matter just too suspicious? I just wanna know your view. Is this how admins deal with things? They go after the people who report things and make sure they are threatened enough not to report anything again? because I am sure what I reported was clearly against the wikipedia policy. If I was wrong to ask the user to comment, he could have said so in a much nicer way. --Kash 03:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If he was not right to do this, I would like you to express this, if he was, please tell me so. --Kash 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your rationale for it, but I am disappointed. You've encouraged him to invite wheel wars in the future by rewarding him with an unblock, I think, and I don't think that is a good idea. At least you should have demanded an apology from him. --Nlu (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you didn't actually unblock. [2] --Sockenpuppe 09:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee

I am concerned with User:InShaneee's actions lately. The user has been constantly warning/blocking various Iranian editors, but, it seems that he has almost been ignoring the other side. Here are some examples:

When Kash informed InShaneee about Aucaman's personal attack, InShaneee took no action and chose to warn Kash instead. [3]

InShaneee attempted to defend Aucaman on his comment against Cyprus the Great, saying that he assumes good faith, but the fact that he signed an accusatory lop-sided statement against Iranian editors contradicts his claims.

I find InShaneee's actions to be very questionable. For now, I just hope that you will look into this issue as a third party administrator. There are a lot of similar actions by InShaneee that I can collect evidence of later, should we have to take this complaint any further. Given that InShaneee is actively involved in in an ongoing conflict on the side of Aucaman, I don't think it's appropriate for him to use his administrative privileges to selectively warn and threaten Iranian editors as indicated above. Consequently, I also find it questionable that InShaneee has agreed toAucaman's request to exclusively "report" Iranian editors to InShaneee instead of using WP:ANI where other administrators, without a POV, would also be able to review such "reports". --ManiF 09:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to see SOme action taken on user:Diyako for personal attacks and instigation

See Kurdistan discussion for vandalism and false sources then see user:Diyako talk page and another user, then user:InShaneee. I want to see InShaneee do his job and not let these breaches slide. Manik666 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note

PYRO-ENERGEN Rewritten

By the help of TShilo12, Henrik, That_Guy%2C_From_That_Show%21, the article was rewritten, reworded, and reworded. Before I'll put the article on wikipedia, please tell me if there's anything against the guidelines. Jtakano 11:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking my IP address

It says that I was blocked from editing because I share an IP address with Queerdaddy, who was blocked because he had an inflammatory username. I'm logged in right now and am in the midst of cleaning up a major article. Please unblock me; why should I be punished for what someone else does? TheImpossibleMan 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You recently deleted this article for failing WP:WEB. It's my understanding that this site is fairly well-known and notable. A google search (with quotes) returns 10,000 results. I know that's not the metric, but I think that article at least deserves due process. Maybe you could undelete and do a AFD? If I don't hear anything (I'll watch here), I'll just do an undelete request. Staecker 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

userpage

I've s-protected yours from edits due to anonymous vandalism, and fully protected it from moves. If you'd prefer this not be done, go ahead and change it back. — Mar. 21, '06[22:22] <freakofnurxture|talk>

InShaneee

This admin has harassed me again. He has threatened to get me blocked because I told a user who was being disruptive to stop his behaviour. I had posted the user's disruptiveness on admin's board here. This admin is going to ban me unless other admins can tell him to stop. And as you can see from comments above its not just me. Please, I beg you to do something about this --Kash 23:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1- The comment did not seem abusive to me, nor to Lucas who I sent it to, he replied to me very calmly and we did not have any problems.

2- He is misquoted what I said to Diyako here, by putting "keep out of this" out of context for obvious reasons! I had clearly mentioned:

Whats your point? Iranians in UK are a minority, but they perfectly know what Christmas is. Do not make any more disruptions here, as I said I have reported you on the admin's notice board and I suggest you keep out of this --Kash 09:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[6]

I had reported the user on the admin's notice board [7] and I was trying to tell the user to stop his disruptive and unreasonable behaviour, now is this a "personal attack" or anything like that?! the admin has not referred to any policies to threaten me this time! --Kash 23:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this problem both on Incidents board>InShaneee and also on his talk page here, where I ask you to please comment on the matter.. --Kash 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that another user has also filled yet another incident board notice about InShanee here!, its worth a look! --Kash 00:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I see.. these relevant reports against him also (as well as above which summaries it all): [8] (my own), [9], [10]

Kash, I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak on my behalf about what I do and what I don't find abusive. - In fact, it was an attack, against the integrity of my motives in this dispute, no less. Although I wouldn't have complained, as I've seen worse, and I'd rather you display your mentality openly than not. Lukas(T.|@) 08:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Objective: Christian Ministries

Hi,

I think the context that you're missing (and that I remember well, having been at very worried at the time) is that CSD A7 was not adopted without controversy. A7 was the first ever mention of "notability" in a CSD, and as you know, a vocal minority of WPians continue to hold that "notability is a not a reason for deletion." Besides those folks, some of us objected strongly to imprecise language within the criterion; after its adoption, a long discussion ensued (still archived somewhere around here) that resulted in a consensus to interpret A7 quite "narrowly". This is why a later action was required to amend the policy with respect to groups of people, an amendment really meant more than anything to target high-school band and club vanity articles. Against this history, expansive interpretations of A7 are a bit alarming. At DRV, you have a somewhat sympathetic audience; but, widespread use of your rationale would quickly come to the attention of so-called "inclusionists", and might ignite unneeded tensions.

That is why I think you were wrong on the actual merit of your rationale. Separately, the argument you made in support of the rationale was technically flawed. Guidelines like WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:CORP are not POLICY; they are intended to be used by xfD commenters within deletion debates. They have absolutely nothing to do with A7. A7 applies to articles about people or groups of people that fail to assert notability. Asserting is a very low bar: a hypothetical article about "Stinky Garbage" (band) is speediable under A7 if it says, "We are a band from Centralia, IL"; it is NOT speediable if it says, "We are a band from Centralia, Illinois, and the best band in the state." Notwithstanding that the second statement is very likely false (and plainly not NPOV), the second incarnation of this article theoretically deserves five days on PROD (best option) or AfD. (Of course, if you speedy it and no one notices, well...Administrators do get latitude.) The real issue, to me, is that when someone points out to you that there could be a dispute about an article, you need to remember what the policy actually says. Be quick to undelete, and don't bother defending a stretched interpretation of a CSD. When good-faith editors disagree, calm debate is always good.

I think your rapid undeletion after the comments at DRV was commendable, and I very much appreciate your question. It goes without saying that (like everybody here except Jimbo) I'm just some idiot who tries to make sense of things. :) I hope I've explained why your initial comment at DRV spooked me a little. After that one remark, I think you behaved with great grace and skill, so keep up the good work. Feel free to talk anytime. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hail, help is much appreciated.

Hail,

I am trying to create an infobox, but I don't know how to work them. If I gave you the info, do you think you could possibly set one up for me?

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience:

"No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."

The Stress alertsprogram aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.

Note from the editor

Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

Thank you! (for unblocking)

Thanks for unblocking 169.244.143.115. I haven't been able to use the school computers for Wikiediting in ages. I appreciate it. Phoenix-forgotten 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Substing.

Let's ask you this nice and directly, so I can get back to editing and relax, knowing that I can just write a friggin' encyclopaedia and not worry about userboxes. I'm new here and already I've seen some of the, ah... uglier aprts of these arguments, the huge scale of the bureaucacy... (and yet, 'Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy'...) it's nice to have someone to just WRITE IT. So... please could you tell me how to can subst my userboxes? Thank you in advance. VJ Emsi 21:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

ROGNNTUDJUU!

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your unblocking of ROGNNTUDJUU!. Administrators have always had the power to block users indefinitely–after all, Arbcom has only existed for the past two years. There is ample precedent for blocking users whose only contributions were vandalism, or who were persistently disruptive, or whose presence was clearly not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For example, anyone who users Wikipedia primarily as personal hosting space can be banned. This doesn't require the arbitration committee. Most bans do not require the committee–nor should they, as it isn't the supreme court of Wikipedia. It's function is dispute resolution, not execution. Any current or former arbitrator (of which I am the latter) would tell you that. Quite a number of them, by the way, concurred in the block.

I suppose this smacks of cabalism, but there's a reason and it's not really connected with these boxes. It's about why we're all here. ROGNNTUDJUU!'s contributions have been persistently disruptive. He has recreated deleted content in his user-space. He has included fair use images on his user page. His user page itself looks like something that belongs on MySpace. His few article contributions have often been unsourced and/or POV-pushing. He's not being banned to silence a critic–do you really believe any of us would countenance such abominable behavior? He's being banned because he's a disruptive troll who does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Your koan on userboxes (which I admire) demonstrates that you understand these underlying principles–which is why I was surprised and more than a little hurt by your rationale. Again, I urge you to reconsider. Best, Mackensen(talk) 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this. I do my best to stay away from boxen disputes, but I've come across this user a number of times, and each time, he was being disruptive. Making good edits doesn't excuse me, you, or any one of us from being blocked if we disrupt the encyclopaedia or its community of editors. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) Wow, nice spiel. Anyway, I sent you (JDoorjam) an email, and since it's not on Wikipedia, it's very frank and coarse :-P But I do think it gets to the heart of the matter. --Cyde Weys 16:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. My biggest reason for unblocking ROGNNTUDJUU! was a process issue: I strongly feel he should have received warning that he was on the brink of being blocked, and should have had other users recommending to him that he spend more time actually drafting the encyclopedia. He got the wrong idea about the encyclopedia from the start, and maybe if someone gives him the right idea we can turn him around. I left a message on his talk page explaining why I unblocked him, and also that I will not unblock him again if he continues to be disruptive. I've also recommended he go on a self-imposed userbox debate break, to focus on the rest of the encyclopedia. I guess I'm from the "rehabilitate" school of thought on users focused on the wrong aspects of Wiki editing. I err on the side of assuming too much good faith, perhaps. But if he still doesn't get it, by all means, block away. JDoorjamTalk 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You unblocked but did not release the autoblock, so the user still cannot edit. See here.

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:

"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."

The Stress alertsprogram aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.

Information

Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.

A plea from the editor...

The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.

User:ROGNNTUDJUU! is a sock of User:De mortuis...

See WP:ANI - I did a quick check, Kelly Martin did a very thorough one and I looked over what she'd done as well. I've reblocked the sock and blocked De mortuis... 48 hours for disruption (the reason for the sock's existence) and faking consensus - David Gerard 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. David Gerard does not reply and others even go for friendly users who are willing to help like JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss with their sockpuppet and userbox paranoias. [11][12] It turned out ROGNNTUDJUU! lives in the house where I currently take care of my friend Henrik's affairs. People here use a common router which seems to have led to some confusion. Could you please take care of ROGNNTUDJUU!'s block? De mortuis... 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be an amazing coincidence that ROG... etc. lives in the same house as your friend Henrik and is involved in the same conflicts. Lacking checkuser access, I am not in a position to question David's conclusions. If ROG is indeed a separate user, it would be prudent, IMO, for him to pick another username and start again, both because I doubt this account will be unblocked, and because, as User:Jonathunder said, it's not a good username. There's nothing offensive or inflammatory or against policy about it, but it's a pain in the butt to have to find a copy of the username and copy and paste it whenever referring to the user because one cannot remember exactly how to spell it. If you insist on pursuing the matter further, I would advise you to contact an administrator with checkuser privileges who can investigate the matter. Truly, JDoorjamTalk 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this house here is a kind of project where most people are involved in some kind of activiy in protest against the Iraq war it seems to me. At least Henrik was and ROGNNTUDJUU! is. I guess that's why they got in contact with each other online, and that is also how I discovered ROGNNTUDJUU!. ROGNNTUDJUU! already is his second account and I guess the same thing may happen again as there are many people using the router and living together they have common fields of interest. I am afraid I cannot follow you about his user name? Do you seriously want people to choose names everyone can remember? When I once lived in Canada it quite concerned me that many people from Asia had chosen English names because they thought this might be more comfortable for Canadians. Leads to a loss of cultural identity in my eyes. De mortuis... 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd, so living in the same house, instead of shouting down the hallway, they chose to meet up at Wikipedia? I guess Wiki is a happening place. With that said, of course, Wikipedia is not the best place to come to protest the Iraq War. If ROG is his second account, I imagine he can go on using his first account, no? As for the names, yes, I'd definitely appreciate it if everyone's name was easy to remember. This is a slightly different case than Asians taking English names: we come up with and choose these names for ourselves. There's no culture involved, no heritage in having the handle User:ROGNNTUDJUU! or User:JDoorjam or User:De Mortuis....So, for some of the same reasons I wouldn't name one of my children "Rognntudjuu", I don't think it's the best pick of user name. This isn't wiki policy; it's simply my view on the matter. If a user wants to pick a name that's nearly impossible to remember, that's up to them. JDoorjamTalk 15:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think Henrik and ROGNNTUDJUU! were aware they lived in the same house. I did not when I first got in contact with ROGNNTUDJUU!. He cannot use his previous account as he forgot the password and we do not want to reveal which account was Henrik's now that he is dead. Neither Henrik nor I ever "campaigned" against the Iraq war on wikipedia. He just added information on it and I tried to go on with this, even though I do not know nearly as much as he did. You can see ROGNNTUDJUU!'s userboxes as campaigning, and I personally think that userboxes should be abolished altogether. It however concerns me that "userboxes are bad" is used as a pretext to delete boxes some do not like. They should all be removed together, not some singled out. Many French speaking people will not have trouble to remember ROGNNTUDJUU! as it comes from a Belgian comic. Someone from Finland already commented on it on ROGNNTUDJUU!'s talk page. De mortuis... 15:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to make sure I have this completely clear. You were an associate of Henrik's, who lived with ROG. None of you knew that the other two were both editors of Wikipedia, and in fact both editors in the same project space. Henrik passed away, and you went to Henrik's house to were dealing with Henrik's affairs. While you were in Henrik's home, there dealing with Henrik's affairs, you decided to make edits to Wikipedia. In these edits you argued alongside ROG, and later argued vehemently for his unblock, though you were still unaware that ROG was in the same building you were, and using the same wirless network. Somewhere in this series of events you became aware that Henrik's account, which you still haven't revealed for reasons I don't quite understand, had been used by Henrik before he died. You also became aware not only that ROG was editing from this same house, but found out exactly who ROG is. ROG then told you that he had another user account that he had once used but has forgotten the password to. This is an amazing series of coincidences. JDoorjamTalk 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could not believe it either when ROGNNTUDJUU! wrote to me he suspected Henrik to be his former neighbour. Looking back it does not come so coincidental to me. Many people using the internet also use wikipedia. People living in the same house are likely to be interested in similar fields. I created my account after I had discovered that Henrik had used an enormous amount of his last time here. Of course I was interested in the fields he had edited. As was ROGNNTUDJUU! who had been accused to be a sockpuppet of Henrik before. We think it would be strange to reveal which account here is that of someone who committed suicide. No idea if Henrik would have been ok with that. De mortuis... 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey dorky administrator: Try as I might, I can't shift all the images in this article to the top so they don't force every paragraph to align with the top of an image. Everytime I do something, the images end up insid the info box. Since you're all powerful now, I thought I'd suggest you take a whack at it. Cornell Rockey 19:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In view of your having reverted AO Charles at the MacDonald article, you will likely soon receive the non-standard vandalism warning about which Jmabel wrote here at AN/I. I thought I ought to welcome you to the club; I was similarly branded and take it as a compliment, inasmuch as recipients are apparently recognized for removing unencyclopedic, unsourced claims. You have the unfortunate distinction of having attended an Ivy (and that distinction is further unfortunate in view of your having been crushed by my Badgers in the quarters of the men's hockey championship) and, as I, having noted such attendance on your user page; you surely will, as I, have your academic history questioned (apparently I attended night school at Princeton; of course, I did only go for one year and only went to class thrice, in view of my inability to get up before noon, so I suppose night school might have more propitious). No worries, though, because Charles assures us that if we keep our anti-semitic tendencies on the down low, we'll be altogether fine! :) Joe 03:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I see you already wrote to AO. You just wanted your own warning, I think... Joe 03:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What?

What exactly do you intend to do about it? Unforchunately for you, I haven't violated any Wikipolicies...so there's nothing you or anything else can do about it. AO Charles 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)AO Charles

Aeurian Order

I understand that you are an admin but I think you have the wrong idea of the Aeurian Order. We are not a group of vandals trying to mess up wikipedia...

You will probally admit that there is a lot of POV and racist stuff out there..

Hello there. You have proposed the article Animenfo.com for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Led Zep filmography

Cheers 4 deleting that 1 - I would have done it myself if I was an admininstrator (how can I become one?), but I 'm not, so there. I found that, in my major restucturing of the Led Zeppelin pages, it was no longer relevant.--RichardHarrold 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocks.

RE: this block. If multiple blocks are in place during the same time period, all of the blocks will expire when the shortest block expires, it's a known bug. To work around this, if you need to extend a block, you need to unblock the account completely, then reblock it for the time you need it blocked. — xaosfluxTalk 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for dropping a note at user:Vorash's talk page regarding Mariah Carey singles discography, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have had any effect. Earlier today he reverted again, destroying this series of edits (which include the addition of references) I made the previous evening. I'm not sure what to do; every time I ask him to cite his sources or discuss the issue, he blindly reverts to "his" preferred version of the article (which has since been revised to eliminate factual inaccuracies and add important information) and calls me a "vandal". Extraordinary Machine 22:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

DAATH Page

Hello,

The DAATH band page was deleted by you after we (the band) edited it. We would like to know why. We added one photo and two links. Also, the new page we created for our singer Mike Kameron was deleted as well. How may we resolve this issue?

Thanks,

Daath & Claire Reeve

FWIW, a Google search for " 'DAATH' and 'Mike Kameron' " returns only 22 hits. The enumeration on the band's website of past shows does reveal gigs in the UK (although each was a joint appearance with at least two other bands) and in several US states (though most shows seem to have taken place in Florida and Georgia), which might establish notability for the group per WP:BAND; I tend to think the group is probably still non-notable. Of course, it is eminently possible that no assertion of notability was made in the original article, and that future revisions were not substantially different from the former; in cases such as that, I think an admin is altogether correct to delete speedily the article, with the proviso that one may, of course, recreate the article with substantially different content or a clear demonstration of notability. Joe 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Joe's right on the money here. Daath has been deleted four times, and the reason is that the article does not assert the notability of the band according to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to take another stab at it, you should read WP:BAND and prominently mention those things that make Daath notable under Wikipedia's standards. I'd focus more on those things that Wikipolicy looks for as signs of notability than on the detailed philosophy of the band and their music, which looks to stray a ways into explaining interpretations of Kabbalah, rather than explaining why the band should be in an encyclopedia. The inspirations of the group should be mentioned but might be getting too much of a spotlight. Because the article has been deleted four times already, you'll need to be extremely careful in rewriting it that you realllly demonstrate notability, or the odds are that the Daath page will simply get locked with the {{deletedpage}} template to avoid further conflicts over whether it should be included at Wikipedia or not. Note, that's not a threat; that's simply a prediction based on observation of a lot of other articles. Please let me know if you have any questions. Truly, JDoorjamTalk 06:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DAATH and Roadrunner have 27,200 hits, (and on a major label)

DAATH has been signed to a major metal record label, Roadrunner records this month. If you checked the proper sites, you would have found this. DAATH is scheduled to tour with Opeth and Cradle of Filth this fall. Daath is listed on Roadrunner's main artist page. check here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/artists/

-Daath's producer is former Death, Testament, and Obituary guitarist James Murphy. -Daath's new album has Kevin Tally from Chimara, a Jim Malone from Arsis and James Murphy as guest artists. -Daath completed one leg of a tour in Europe with the band Organ earlier this year. -Daath has had national interviews on ghostlytalkradio and 4Q Radio in England lasting more than an hour. -Daath has announcements of their next album on MTV and VH1 websites and will be on the MTV Headbangers Ball Compilation this year.

So as you can see we are deserving of being listed on Wikipedia. Please restore our site or make it available for entry, The first 3 times (daath) was entered in by our fans. It was being edited for consistancy.

Best regards Daath and Claire Reeve

Hey, I'm actually working to restore the article to user sub-page User:Clairereeve/DAATH, where it can be brought up to "fighting weight" and put back on the encyclopedia. All of those pieces of information you just put on my talk page are great, and should definitely be included in any article that's put together. The only delay had been that I was going to find and upload album art which had been deleted, but I'll put the original article on that page without the art for now.

Again, the information you left about the tour, about their producer, and the various guests is all good. (I don't care as much about Google hits as I do about WP:MUSIC, so you don't have to worry about Google-hit arithmetic.) If you can find sources for that information (which I imagine is at Roadrunner Records' web site?), it should definitely be included in the article.

I can't guarantee the article won't be deleted again—musical acts have a notoriously high bar in proving notability on Wikipedia—but I won't delete it again.

WP:AUTO: the policies on writing an article about one's self. It's generally frowned upon to write or edit one's own article. I'd urge you to be extremely careful to maintain a neutral point of view about the band.

Finally, if and when the article is posted, I'd suggest putting it at DAATH (band) or Daath (band); that's the usual format for groups whose name has other meanings. Again, if you have any questions, lemme know. JDoorjamTalk 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

flattbush history

What do you want me to do to keep the history up? Cite references? how, just put up references?Stabinator 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I didn't notice that you condensed it. Looks ok, The essay was completly true and meticulously checked by all former and current band members though.Stabinator 18:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to do with the discussion page? They erase their own posts and now it looks like I m speaking to myself! They love to play their little dirty Commie tricksStabinator

BTW, it's fine the way it is right now...I actually like it better like this...My point is to get them blocked from vandalising it further, posting their inflections and giant lies to make themselves look better.Stabinator 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of 1313 Mockingbird Lane (Non notable)

Hello, While I can certainly underatand the deletion of this page for possible lack of format, catagory or more links, I am curious as to why this would be deleted as a non notable garage rock band when many of the following bands listed in the catagory (garage bands) are no less notable. Here is the list: @ Boys Thee Obscene The 5.6.7.8's The Alleys The Avatars The Beerleaders Betsy & The Teen Take Over be your own PET The Bent Scepters Black Rebel Motorcycle Club Billy Childish The Buff Medways The Blue Van The Charms The Clamour Compulsive Gamblers The Country Teasers The Cynics Dead Moon Deja Voodoo The Detroit Cobras The Dirtbombs Doo Rag Eagles of Death Metal The Embrooks The Flakes The Fleshtones The Fondas Fortune and Maltese The Fuzztones Gas Huffer Girl Trouble The Gore Gore Girls The Gories The Gravedigger 5 Virtualindie The Greenhornes The Gruesomes The Hentchmen Thee Headcoats The Hey Hey Hey! Hysteric Narcotics The Hellacopters The Hives The Indikation The Insomniacs The (International) Noise Conspiracy Jet The Kaisers The Kills Thee Lordly Serpents Lyres Mando Diao The Mayo-Bits Of The Back Street The Milkshakes Thee Mighty Caesars The Miracle Workers Mondo Topless The Monomen The Mooney Suzuki The Morlocks The Mummies The Nymphs The Nomads Oblivians Oddballs' Band The Original Sins The Outta Place The Pandoras The Phantom Surfers Plan 9 Prosthetic Smile Razorlight RebelthePhoenix The Satelliters The Seers Thee Shams Shrubs The Sound Explosion The Stems The Stomachmouths The Strokes The Subsonics The Subways The Stepford Husbands The Swingin' Neckbreakers The U-Men The Untamed Youth The Von Bondies The Vines The White Stripes The Woggles The Young Werewolves Les Diamants Zack & the Cracks

I was working on the article when it got deleted, and was working on placing more links and sources. While there are certainly more popular bands on this list, I can guarantee there are many less popular bands on this list who have sold less records.

I was brought to Wikipedia by a false section of an article that was placed on an artists page that I toured with and the musicians or friends of the musicians wrote on the artists page that they were the "regular backing band " of that star and the statement they made was completely false and I have contracts to prove it. The placement of this information was self serving and linked them to their own musician page.When I tried to delete the false statements, the deletion was reversed and I was blocked.

Could you please explain the criteria used for non notable bands and what specifically was missing from this article? I understand that it probably wasn't properly formatted but I am new to this and trying to get the hang of it.

1313 Mockingbird Lane

"I deleted 1313 Mockingbird Lane because it didn't qualify as notable under the guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC in my opinion, and in the opinion of the editor who originally tagged it for speedy deletion. It also appeared, from what was written at the bottom of the page, that it was copied wholecloth from another source, which would make it a copyright violation. I did not delete it for lack of links, nor lack of references; the page would also have needed verifiable sources, but that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. If there are other bands which you feel do not qualify as notable under the Wikipedia criteria, I would strongly encourage you to edit them and put {{db-band}} at the very top. This will nominate those pages for speedy deletion. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"

To respond specifically to the above, 1st, I saved the document as I assumed correctly that it was going to be speedily deleted without a trace to be seen anywhere. After all that work, why wouldn't I save it? This is my document written 100% by me. It was saved to word and then copied by myself, but I am the composer and writer of that text completely.

Now to address the issues concerning notability under the guidlines laid out at WP:Music. While I'm sure you understand the guidlines well, a musical group only has to have one of the listed qualifications below to qualify for listing and yet this band has qualifications in at least each of the catagories below and more.

Wikipedia states that to to qualify a group:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works....and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)."

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city."

In my opinion my article mentioned sources and qualifications listed below, but was still deleted for reasons of non notability.

The group was signed to no less than four credible indie labels one of which is Sundazed which is a very prominent indie label that put out dozens and dozens of releases by such groups as The Monkees,Nancy Sinatra, The Trashmen, Shadows of Night etc.

As far as resources go, the Wikipedia site explains that the "All Music Guide" is an excellent source. The band appears on that guide.

I also quoted as a source Timothy Gassen's UK book "The Knights Of Fuzz" published in three editions already by Borderline Books ISBN# 1-899855-02-5. The group was featured and listed in the Hot 100 groups along with many of the groups already listed in the genre on Wikipedia. Not only has this book been published in three editions, it is very collectible and desired and the old editions sell on the market for well more than the published price. This isn't a veriable source?

The drummer of the group 1313 was formerly Link Wray's( A Notable guitarist with a page on Wikipedia) drummer in 1985 and played on the LP Live In '85(Ace records, UK). There currently is a band called Dieselhed listed on Wikipedia who has links to their band from Link Wray and also have links to individual musician pages based on this affiliation. To the best of my knowledge, they have not played on any recorded works with this artists, yet still appear to be qualified and have not been deleted. Additionally, they have appeared to place deliberately false information about being Link Wray's regular backing band when touring records clearly show that he had no regular backing band.

I have plenty of positive press from on this group 1313 local(New York) and internationally which are not vanity articles and refer to the groups notablity in the genre of garage rock.

Again, I feel that my article mentioned or cited these issues and am again finding myself not understanding based on the list of other grous less notable on the garage rock list.

The Daily Show

I've left most of your tweaks, but i complete reconstituted the criticism section. As someone who doesnt necessarily believe most of what i wrote, the fact is the criticism exists and repressing the fact is revisionist. The daily show is concidered biased by many. Jon Stewart is a self proclaimed liberal, period. What you called "weasle words" im guessing the fact that i explained the standpoint of the critics accurately instead of making it vague as you did. Please speak to me about this section before editting it again to avoid a war. Thanks.--Mark 2000 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1313 Mockingbird Lane

Your expanation that the book is not about the group applies to all the groups in the book,many of which are already listed on Wikipedia. That's why it's a guide.It seems that you almost have a personal issue with this book or its validity as a verifiable guide to this type of music. You mention that the book is out of print,which isn't accurate. Even if that were an accurate statement, does that mean that out of print records and cd's can't be listed in a discography because they are unverifiable?? Is there a section of policy that dictates that out of print books cannot be used as veriable sources?

That would be akin to saying that because Billboard magazine chart listings are not about The Beatles ,therefore The Beatles page shouldn't reference Billboard as a veriable source.

You neglected to address the issue that the group was listed in the "all music guide" which is a Wikipedia recommended resource.

Here are a few samples of published articles in Newspapers I found in a file which are only a few I have off hand.:

Friday December, 29 1989 Schenectady Gazette;

Top Local Recordings OF 1989: 1313 Mockingbird Lane The Secong Coming Of.

I could provide many more if needed,but again I don't think this is what is required by the definitions as I am reading them.

Again, I would like to stress that the band only needed to be signed to a recognizable indie label to be included under the Wikipedia guidlines, so why are we going around on this?

I readily admit that my article was pretty deficient missing links regarding the Link Wray connection etc, but to say overall that the band is not notable under the Wikipedia guidlines is simply not the case here.

While I agree after thoroughly reading their Wikipedia page that Dieselhed didn't simply rely on the Link Wray connection,they are connected to that article and have placed false information on it which was termed vandalism when removed previously. Additionally, there is information on the Dieselhed page which discusses the firing of a band member without really quoting a source on where that information came from. What's to verify that information and its accuracy? That is the type of pointed information that seems way overly personal and another example of "he said she said" gossip.

I understand that there is an interest to delete "non notable" bands, but as I have mentioned previously, this band (1313) qualifies under the current definitions in more than one catagory.

This is not a case of whether the band exists, but specifically adhering to the current Wikipedia requirements which I have addressed previously.

Hi - Just letting you know Hamilton has taken my suggestion to nominate the deletion of the article 1313 Mockingbird Lane for deletion review. And, like I told him, I'm not making any judgement about the issue - just facilitating. -- Rick Block(talk) 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Georgetown Chimes

Hello. Thank you for catching and fixing the redundant edit I made a few weeks back. Keep up the good work. Cheers!

Instantnood request

Re: My signature and Queer People of Colour

Hello JDoorjam and thanks for the advice on leaving a signature. I'm not too saavy on Wikipedia yet and I greatly appreciate any tips toward navigating this network with greater ease.

With regards to the comment that I left about Queer people of color and your feeling of being called a bigot, I assure you that this was not my intent. I stated that "to disappear [the article] would be nothing short of bigotry". That is, the act of erasing this article would be an act of bigotry, though this does not make the person or persons doing so "bigots" by design, just as I - being a man - may inadvertantly exhibit sexist behaviour on occasion, yet this does not make me a chauvanist or misogynist. Those of us who are in positions of power may do oppressive things from time to time, but this does not make us oppressors 24 hours a day. I am sorry if my tone sounded aggressive. I agree that all correspondence over Wikipedia - and the World Wide Web in general - should be indeed done with a cool head. I will be more careful in the future. Morganfitzp 05:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the note

Hi - Thanks for this note. I thought you were probably fine with going the review route, but it's good to know for sure. -- Rick Block(talk) 14:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dannyisme

userbox request

When you have a moment, Mr. Administrator, please add the Cornell Univ. user box to my list of userboxes between the Safari box and the NYS box. I am unable to figure out how to add boxes in, but still greatly appreciate you saving my 'objectional' userboxes. Thanks Cornell Rockey 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ben Jr.. If you have a spare moment, perhaps I could persuade you to archive my current talk page so I have a clean slate, and add one of those 'click here to leave me a message' links like on yours. Thanks again. Cornell Rockey 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth Day

1WW Refactor

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpowerháblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

David Yeagley

I don't know what the article looked like, but David Yeagley is a political writer who regularly contributes to David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine. Gazpacho 05:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Total bunk that I don't know how to delete. Thought that you could take care of it. Enjoy:) Cornell Rockey 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Again I find myself thanking you for your good work. Glad to see some of the people who are administrators are competent, swift and effective. Party on brother. Cornell Rockey 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to be more civil if User:GO WHARTON would stop lying about me (e.g. reverting my edits and labelling his reversions as removing "vandalism" and saying that I am removing "all Ivy League references" from Wikipedia). If you would like an explanation of my reversions, please read the talk page, as I had instructed in my edit. Thanks. MBAguy 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Theocratic Federal Republic

I suggest reading "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips and next time don't delete the truth.

You had expressed an interest in mediating the dispute over the promotion and reversion of NPOV edits to Ivy League business schools. If you're still interested, I'm writing to request that you review the talk page IN DETAIL and make up your own mind as to what is going on, and help out. Please also review the user's edit history, which shows that the handle was created specifically for this purpose [14] and that this is all he does [15]. Thanks. MBAguy 04:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Queer People of Color (Objections, Accepted Information)

I can rearrange the data so that it's supported with references. The queer people of color info isn't tangential when bringing up a news report on Iranians(non-white) who were executed due to their sexual preference, it's another issue interconnecting non-whites and sexuality and the myth that it's a colonial/white import. The movie addition illustrates the hardships of living in a non Western setting and in fear of being accepted as a queer or homosexual. One of the main characters is native to Ghana, a place where homosexuality/sodomy rules are condemed by death or explicit execution. This is viable education for the reader, I am having trouble understanding why so many things have gotten censored or removed from its page(much less who I have to show proof to before its considered as correct, honest or valid, when I, a self-identified 'queer person of color' is unrepresented enough.). Anarkafrica 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say Thanks for having the brains to remove other politicians' abortion stances from the Rick Santorum article. I don't know why I didn't think of that. President Lethe 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

GO WHARTON and MBAguy

Is it possible that they are the same person? Has that thought occurred to you? Just wondering... Dpbsmith(talk) 10:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to sign off Wikipedia because of this incident, and partly your handling of it (mainly Dpbsmith's handling of it). When admins refuse to spend enough time to sort out legitimate users (who have contributed in the past) from trolls whose handles were created to perpetuate a single POV, it makes me lose faith entirely in this system. Wikipedia will degenerate into a mass of completely biased, untrustworthy information. MBAguy 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Issues guided by POV are very difficult to work out, because what one person thinks is a valuable addition, another might think is spam. I should point out that your handle is also rooted in your POV, and so GO WHARTON could make very similar statements about your edits. It is too bad that you and User:GO WHARTON were unable to come to a compromise, rather than spending so much time reverting one another. I hope you'll return at some point and edit with a more collaborative outlook on the project. Truly, JDoorjamTalk 19:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob MacDonald (journalist)

You think someone might type "Bob MacDonald (journalist)" first, before typing just "Bob MacDonald"? That seems awfully unlikely to me. It looks like that redirect is only there because the page was moved. What's the general rule for this type of situation? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I'm reticent to delete the redir is on the off-off chance that there are external links to this article somewhere out there on the internet, it'd lead to a dead page. Redirects are cheap in terms of server load and file space, so it doesn't really hurt anything to keep it around, IMO. JDoorjamTalk 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryland site

While I agree that we should welcome newbies, I also think it is necessary to have admins gently explain to them what they are doing wrong if they are doing it repeatedly and in her case, angrily. She applied to be an admin so she could lock the page with her opinions still on it! That's malice. Furthermore, if you compare my edits, two were reverts of her reverts and the rest were revisions and moving info to more relevant areas of the Maryland page. But as you say, I'll let the newbie feel her way out here. WillC 19:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of FA Premier League Team List

Hi JDoorjam!

Could you do something about 217.252.51.133, who recently vandalised the Templete for the FA Premier League Team List by changing the Wigan Athletic F.C. entry to read Wigan Fuck off You Fuckin Jew F.C., You can find the offence here. While this seems to be a first offence, due to the vulgar and racist nature of the vandalism, I wonder if you would consider an indefinite block. This is not the type of user that we want on the project.

The "Patience of a Saint" award

I can't thank you enough, that's really kind of you. :) I've been in this mess for several months now, and considering all the accusations of abuse, harrassment, and general incompetence I get from these guys on a daily basis, it means a lot to hear someone say I'm doing a good job. I don't know how I got involved in all of this (it's certainly nowhere near my area of expertise), but I really do believe that if I can get all of these guys playing by the rules, then compromise is inevitable. Now that I've seen so much of what's been going on, even if I do have to contine on by myself, I figure it is for the best if I see this out. So, again, thanks a ton for the award. :) --InShaneee 00:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Waco Siege

I'm surprised you felt the need to revert 70.108.123.232. changes to the "Waco Siege" article. The only changes he made were to substitute "church" for "compound." Even though the FBI made a point of using the word "compound" during the siege, especially at press conferences, the Branch Davidians referred to the building that burned as a "church"--before, during and after the siege.

Personally I think the FBI's use of "compound" was a deliberate attempt to dehumanize David Koresh and to make the attack on the Branch Davidians seem less horrific than it actually was: attacking a "compound" does not have quite the same resonance as attacking a "church." Neither "compound" nor "church" are neutral, since each reinforces a certain point of view--perhaps this fact needs to be mentioned.

I don't see how one is more "encyclopedic" than the other.Founders4 06:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page

Did I do that correctly? Anyway, here's what I wrote:

I'm surprised you felt the need to revert 70.108.123.232. changes to the "Waco Siege" article. The only changes he made were to substitute "church" for "compound." Even though the FBI made a point of using the word "compound" during the siege, especially at press conferences, the Branch Davidians referred to the building that burned as a "church"--before, during and after the siege.

Personally I think the FBI's use of "compound" was a deliberate attempt to dehumanize David Koresh and to make the attack on the Branch Davidians seem less horrific than it actually was: attacking a "compound" does not have quite the same resonance as attacking a "church." Neither "compound" nor "church" are neutral, since each reinforces a certain point of view--perhaps this fact needs to be mentioned.

I don't see how one is more "encyclopedic" than the other.Founders4 06:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Choice of "compound," user page suggestion

Thanks for your comments. I do see your reasoning regarding "compound," and I agree that "church" is not quite right because of the residential nature of the Branch Davidian....ok...."compound"! I suppose we don't actually have a good word for what they built (monastery?...no....nunnery?....no....abbey?....no...sanctuary?...no) and the way they chose to live.

Yes, I would appreciate suggestions regarding my user page. I'm rather new at this and don't know the ropes.Founders4 19:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Revised Article

Hello,

I am writing in hope that you will be able to have a look at the revised article on my userpage which was initially deleted several weeks ago. Thank you,

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service.

This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.

The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!

Note from the editor

As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!

Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel.

A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect.

Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct.

Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop.

Question regarding watchlist

Since you are pretty familiar with Wikipedia, I wonder if you might be able to provide some guidance regarding my watchlist. There are currently about 8 pages that I monitor. I try to check the list about once a day to see if any changes have been made, either to these pages of my "Talk" page--is there a way Wikipedia might notify me via e-mail of any recent "watchlist" additions? If not that would certainly be a great convenience. Thanks. Founders4 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikistress

Thanks for getting back. Yes, I've already experienced Wikistress, connected to a sense of proprietorship. This does tend to get addictive, doesn't it?!Founders4 07:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornell

I understood this when I started expanding the Cornell template, and figure that this is what we should do. Create a new page for Cornell Student Activities which goes into more detail about what students do at Cornell, and link from it on the main page as we have with mainarticle. I think this page ought to be the hub for everything students do, and include a second template, similar to the main Cornell one, with links to each of the Cornell Student Activities pages. These pages can be clubs, newspapers, a capella groups (we ought to get rid of the Cornell a capella template, we're broadening in scope here), etc. I also want to expand upon fraternity and sorority life at Cornell. Each student organization could then include both Cornell templates.

User Christian

Please participate in the discussion before making any additional changes. You are right - the joke is over, but the point that items in the template namespace must be POV is quite valid. Rexmorgan 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you restored User Christian without asking me first. I'm not aware of any WP:POINT violations that I've engaged in. That sir, is wheel-warring. What the hell did you think you were doing? Mackensen(talk) 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of admin rollback

Look at this edit for a second. Now remember the rules for admin rollback. You're abusing your privileges. Also, you just inserted the same thing twice into two separate sections of the article. I don't see how that helps anyone. Hey, maybe if you had used "Show Changes" and then "Submit" rather than admin rollback you would've caught that. Admin rollback is for vandalism only; remember that. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

GO WHARTON, et. al.

As far as the debate surrounding the above user is concerned, I've become rather disconcerted. But I'm not sure what to do about this socking and sock accusations. Somebody accused GO WHARTON of socking, then he changed the tags, then someone changed to something else...it's enough to make my head spin. My post to WP:ANI is to ask someone with access to blocks to intervene and start handing them out to the abusive throwaway socks first, and then sort out the other issues. If you'd like to look into the matter and require more information, just let me know. Isopropyl 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for admins having to deal with Gekko, Dc9 et al. The actions, language, and arrogance of User talk:Dc9, User talk:Dc10 and a few anonymous users are remarkably similar to those of User:MBAguy and User:Gekko, all of whom have been putting sockpuppet, troll and other warnings on my user talk page. To lighten the mood, I put a humorous "this user is a sockpuppet of Jiminy Cricket" message on my talk page. Helpful suggestions from admins, humor to lighten the mood, advice from other users - admins can't seem to get through to him. MBAguy and now the latest user name Dc9 have been complaining about and arguing with many admins since April. Admins have suggested to MBAguy, Gekko, Dc10, and Dc9 that he let it go and move on. "It" refers to the Ivy League business schools article, the one he wanted to delete even though voters turned down his AfD. I started that article and many users have improved on it. MBAguy still wants it deleted. Using fake angst, User:MBAguy pretended to storm away from wikipedia, never to return. Ever since he "stormed away," Gekko, Dc10, and Dc9 have been playing the same game as did MBAguy: Complain about admins, harrass people on their user talk pages, argue with everyone, etc. I don't envy the position of you and other admins as far as dealing with MBAguy, Gekko, et al. GO WHARTON 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:GO WHARTON implicates himself through his own talk page. Consider that it is completely illogical for me to create a user called User:Dc10 who undoes and confuses my reversions, as that user has done. Obviously User:Dc10 is a sockpuppet of User:GO WHARTON himself, who makes random accusations against anyone trying to police his fakery. Yes, all I've done on Wikipedia so far is fight against him, because I noticed that he's making my school (Wharton) look bad. Based on the evidence provided by other users, it's very clear that he's the same user as User:JDMBAHopeful, a Yale School of Management student, and a fact that he's desperately trying to conceal through many spurious edits and sockpuppets. Look at the talk page and the pattern is clear. Dc9 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)